About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Sacramento 8, Sugaya 5, Borden 5, San Francisco 4, Mr. Spadia 3, Haase 3, Kevin 3, Moore 3, Antonini 3, Fong 3, Ucsf 3, Japantown 3, Mr. Mitchell 3, Ncd 2, Lou 2, Wu 2, Tdr 1, Permited 1, Kathrin Stephanie 1, Programmatically 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    February 25, 2013
    6:00 - 6:30am PST  

6:00am
minutes for february 7th, 2013, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners that motion passes unanimously and places you under item 5, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i'd like to ask that we adjourn today in memory of lou spadia. i'd like to say a few words about mr. spadia because i think there are some great life lessons here for those of you who did not know who he was or did not see the obituary in the chronicle or examiner. lou was a native san franciscan, raised in potrero hill. and like was the case with my father, didn't learn english till he went to elementary school. i'm not sure which school it was but it was somewhere in san francisco. i'm not sure if it was the case for lou also, but my father got to do the first grade twice
6:01am
because the nunns wanted to make sure he was fluent in english before he advanced. i think it served him well through the rest of his life. in fact, he gave them a considerable sum when he passed way. he felt they were successful because of their insistence on his fluency in english. anyway more on mr. spadia. he advanced through high school. he was so fluent and so well liked that he became student body president in mission high school. and then right after he -- after the war he got out of the service and was probably the first employee of the san francisco 49ers when they were formed by the morabito brothers in 1946 as part of the all-american football conference. and his early jobs included things like being the equipment man, making travel arrangements and having to do bed checks on players to see that they were in bed. but i think the lesson here is he worked really hard and worked his way up through the organization, becoming business manager in '57 and becoming ceo after the second of the
6:02am
morabitos passed away in the mid 1960s. and he also was influential with the nfl in persuading pete rozell another product of usf to start putting national ads in nfl programs and it was the beginning of the growth of the league. but what's even more important, mr. spadia went on as ceo until the team was sold to the dibartolo's. it was the sports hall of fame. it was the hall without a hall. the money we raised on this event we don't want to build a structure to house the plaques of the players. we want to give it to children to help in their sports and education. so, that's really important. and i think the lessons, as i
6:03am
mentioned, is even today if you'll work hard and persevere, you can advance in an organization. and i know of situations in today's world where people will begin at the bottom and rise to the top of organizations by hard work. and secondly, of course, it's very important to be fluent in the language that -- of your country, in this case english. and third you've got to give back to the community for the things that were given to you. so, i think lou is a great example and that's why i want to adjourn in his honor. >> thank you. commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i had the privilege of meeting mr. spadia when i was a little kid. and he was a member of st. pious church where one of my very good friend's mother was secretary. so, we had occasion to meet him. i don't remember exactly, but anyway, like to thank director ram for the railroad boulevard
6:04am
i-8 0 -- i-2 80 project memorandum. and i assume at some point in the future we'll actually have some presentation or something when it gets along far enough. * and then we also, courtesy of our secretary and i believe the mayor's office received a list of current -- this week's agenda item for various commissions and boards. and i'd just like to note that under entertainment, on the 19th, they had an issue which was town music studio at 1660 geary boulevard, place of entertainment permit. and that is in the japan center. so, could staff look into that a little bit and give it -- maybe just give us a short, like a memo or something on what's going on with that.
6:05am
given that other entertainment seems to have caused some issues. and then under the building inspection, there was discussion and possible action -- i'm just reading this -- on a proposed ordinance amending the building code to establish mandatory seismic retrofit for wood frame buildings of three or more stories and containing five or more dwellings. could we also get some information -- okay, all right. >> in fact, on your advance calendar as a future presentation -- >> all right, okay, great. thank you. >> commissioner borden. >> yes, i would also -- i also got to know lou spadia. i went to the chamber in his years he would actually still come in. it was always such a delightful person to have around. people don't know what the bay area sports all of fame is, when you're in the united terminal at san francisco
6:06am
international airport, it has the plaques of the athletes. it's a great idea and a way to make our airport terminal very local and interesting. the other thing i wanted to announce is the red cross has moved into their new offices at 1663 market at goff and this friday they're having an opening blessing. so, if you're around at the building [speaker not understood], will be going in at some point. you can come see a great adaptive reuse project of a great old building that is being inhabited and what they will have at some point in the future is the disaster operations center for san francisco for when there is a major seismic event and they're going build a state-of-the-art operation center because we actually don't have one. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> commissioner borden, could you send out a quick e-mail to us so that we kind of know the time and date and repeating the
6:07am
location one more time. thank you. >> any additional commissioner comments, questions? >> commissioners, that will place you under director's report, item 6, director's announcements. >> thank you. good afternoon, commission. just a couple of quick announcements. we have had the green connections plan that we've been working on with a number of city and nonprofit agencies including the parks alliance, lock san francisco and nature in the city. there has been a survey that has been online for a number of weeks that closes at the end of the month. so, just to offer -- want to get their last thoughts in on that. that survey will close. it's on the planning department website. that survey does close on february 28th. i wanted to let you know that the japantown plan, which the community has now changed the name of to the japantown cultural economic and sustainability strategy is now available online * on the department's website. or through the japantown task
6:08am
force as well. that community has completed its work on that plan and the draft is out for public comment. and there is a public meeting on that plan on next tuesday, the 26th, from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the japanese cultural and community center at 1840 sutter street. so, that is to talk about the draft of the whole plan that the community has completed. finally, i just wanted to let you know that we are on track with the academy of arts and the violations, the conditions of the notices of violations. they have met their first two rounds of deadlines. so, they have met the requirements that we asked them to meet to date, and we are working with them on a series of -- we are scheduling a series of meetings to go over the details of our long-term plans. and also, of course, on any of the conditions in the enforcement actions, but we are on track as of right now with the academy. that concludes my report. the zoning administrator tells me that there was a board of
6:09am
appeals hearing last night, but there wasn't anything on commission action. he will be here next week to give you a full report on the board of appeals as well. >> commissioners, there is no report from the board of supervisors either. so, item 7 will be a review of last week's events or yesterday's events at the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim frye, department staff here to report to you on yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. it was a very short hearing, so, there's only a couple item to share with you. the commission continued its decision on who to appoint to the historic preservation fund committee. as you know, this is a committee that was made up of variety of stakeholders from the preservation community and various city agencies as a result of the emporium settlement a number of years ago. the historic preservation
6:10am
commission has one appointment to that committee and has decided to postpone that decision until all members of the commission are appointed. the commission also received a update from commissioner haase on 900 innes. this is the ship right cottage down at 900 innes in the bayview neighborhood. there are some outstanding dbi violations on the landmark property. commissioner haase was appointed to work with the community and randy shaw, the property owner, in finding ways to raise the money for a new roof on the structure and to secure the structure and to address the outstanding violations. and he gave a report on the estimates that are currently being procured via several contractors and will report back to you once the community and the property owner have a better idea of what direction they're going to take to address the violations. commissioner haase will also be
6:11am
present at the dbi hearing in early march to represent the historic preservation commission along with the planning department and the property owner. that concludes my report unless you have any questions. thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, mr. frye. was there -- on this advance notice there's 206th street, there was some 106 issue. >> 206th street was on their agenda. it wasn't an issue per se. it's a standard practice for certain size projects that require section 106 review by our historic preservation commission. they provided review and comment on the m.o.a. that has been prepared between the mayor's office, hud, and the property owner. they had a few comments about the public display, interpretive display on the site. but other than that, just a couple clarifications. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you.
6:12am
>> moving forward, commissioners, that will place you under general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment on items that are not on today's agenda? seeing none, general comment -- public comment is closed. >> commissioners, that will take you to your regular calendar. and i just received a request from supervisor wiener's office to move item 8 to the end of the calendar in order to afford persons who would like to speak an opportunity to arrive. >> okay. >> if that's agreeable, then we will take items 9 and 10 out of order. item 9, case no. 2012.0077t, amendments to the planning code, modifying controls for medical service uses in the sacramento neighborhood commercial district [board file no. 13-0042]. *
6:13am
case no. 2012.0077t, amendments to the planning code, modifying controls for medical service uses in the sacramento neighborhood commercial district [board file no. 13-0042]. >> good afternoon, commissioners. amy rodgers, planning department staff. i've just been contacted by supervisor farrell that [speaker not understood] is in route. in fact, there she is. so, i will allow her to make some opening remarks to the commission and then i will run through our department's recommendation on this proposed ordinance. >> thank you. >> i'd like to think i'm not out of breath, but i am. good afternoon, commissioners. kathrin stephanie, legislative aid appearing on behalf of supervisor mark farrell. just wanted to take a brief moment to describe the genesis of the legislation you have before you. several months ago our office received a call from the owner of 32 39-32 41 sacramento street. mr. steve mitchell, who is expected to be here today, i think is going to be here around 1:00, though. i apologize he's not here now.
6:14am
at that time he described the unique nature of his property and how the controls of sacramento street and ncd were making it extremely difficult to utilize the ground level space of the old victorian. the victorian built in 1883 is designated as a potential historic resources -- resource and the ground level space is not visible from the street. i have a picture here for your reference. so, you can see here, i don't know, i've never done this before, so, is it on there? it's face up. that's the property in question. so, this is designated a potential historic resources he. the ground space is not visible from the street as the entrance is setback down the walkway along multiple levels of stairs. the hidden nature of this base is problematic for most
6:15am
businesses. the company that occupied the space before this property was listed on craig's list for at least 11 mos with no takers. it is difficult for a business or professional service use to locate there given the lack of visibility from the street. * the second floor of the property consists of [speaker not understood] offices of mental health providers. given that any use on the first floor would have to be compatible with the existing use, it seemed a good use for the ground floor would be additional offices for medical health providers. our office contacted the planning department and confirmed that the only way to remedy the situation, one that we felt worthy of remedying was through legislation. legislation was obviously needed in this case due to the fact that new medical service uses are prohibited in the sacramento street ncd which runs from lion's street to spruce street on sacramento. when drafting legislation we wanted to make sure that we respected the concerns that created the prohibition in the first place. in 1987 when these controls were in place there were concerns that medical service uses were displacing
6:16am
neighborhood service -- neighborhood serving businesses and residential units. i really should not have ran up those stairs. excuse me. obviously community outreach is very important when doing legislation like this. mr. mitchell reached out to the merchants on this street and to sam, with the presidio [speaker not understood] to explain the challenges she was s.p.r.tion with her property. our office did the same and included san in the drafting of the legislation to make sure everyone was comfortable, that the controls in the ncd would still preserve the existing neighborhood serving retail uses and residential units. i also met mr. mitchell at the property and then walked the entire ncd with him looking at every single property to make certain that the legislation will not have any unintended consequences and result in the proliferation of medical services somehow in the ncd. mr. mitchell and i also met with staff at the planning department with a draft of the ordinance and floor plans to again make certain that the legislation would satisfy our
6:17am
intent to address the unique situation presented by his property while preserving existing controls. at that meeting we were assured that it would tayloring it in the way we did, and allowing the change from business or professional service use to medical service use on the first floor provided no residential use or active street frontage use is loss lofted. we do have support for the legislation. charlie ferguson, member of the san board announced they approved it on february 11th. the small business commission voted 7 to 0 recommending it. and lastly, would just really like to thank planning staff, [speaker not understood] for all their help and attention to this issue. i'm available for questions. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. stephanie gave a thorough explanation about the history of this legislation. so, i have a few remarks. basically, this legislation is very simple. it would be amending the planning code for this
6:18am
particular neighborhood commercial district to allow a use under certain circumstances, which is currently prohibited. as you've heard, the intent of the controls when this neighborhood commercial district was originally set up was in part to deal with a concern about expanding office-type uses and including medical service office type uses. what we think has been drafted here is a very narrowly defined exception that would allow this sort of use in certain circumstances where you already have the existing use, which is on this floor of the building in particular, a publishing type use to transition into this medical service office use. this change would allow the existing occupants to stay in the neighborhood. it would also meet the intent of the district in that this would only be allowed in this particular instance and only when no residential uses are displaced and no active street frontage is lost. and since what we have here is
6:19am
one office type use transitioning to another office type use in the same building, we think that this is an appropriate method to proceed and we're recommending approval of the proposed ordinance with a few technical modifications to make sure it's exactly clear what the intent is. if there are any questions, i'd be happy to address those at this time or after public comment. >> thank you. commissioner borden. i'm sorry, public comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden. >> i'm very supportive. i think this makes a lot of sense. i was just wondering if we thought also, larger i know in the past the issue around medical use both related to ucsf and cpmc and now it looks like both are leaving that immediate neighborhood. there might be a desire to look at a larger conversation in general about the uses along sacramento street.
6:20am
i imagine this will be less of an issue in the future. i don't know if that's something that the supervisors are starting to look at generally, but i know that ucsf put that property on the block which is on california street and then cpmc's plan are to close down the existing hospital and facilities they have there. >> thank you, commissioner borden. of course, it's something that we're looking at. i don't know how it's going to affect the ncd at this time, but we're involved in both those processes with ucsf and cpmc. so, we'll keep that in mind, thank you. >> great. in term of the zoning for anne marie, it's not restrictive -- for the medical uses already there, if they should leave, is it easy for other uses to inhabit those spaces? >> in this particular instance, if the use were legally permited in this ground floor use under this change to the legislation, entitlement would be in place. so, another similar medical use could come in that same location. again, it could not go in
6:21am
another location unless it met the specific criteria laid out in this ordinance. >> and i guess my only question is with the medical use designation zoning that we have now, is it mostly fall under business professional use or is it a special category that exists? not talking about this particular case, but just in general when you look at the existing medical use in that neighborhood. is it zoned specifically medical use or [speaker not understood]? >> zoning is sacramento street neighborhood district. the land use is what you're talking about. >> right. >> i think there are more of the medical service type land uses in this district. there's not that many just office or professional service uses. but what we do have are a lot of counseling services, therapists, that sort of use in the neighborhood. >> i guess what i'm trying to make sure, it's just that i know some cases we have specific use zoning and i don't know like if a medical service use is already in another building, say, and it moves out and something else can easily
6:22am
go in, is it like an as of right change, retail space wanted to go n restaurant. i wanted to understand how that works. >> on the ground floor, yes, this district would generally encourage retail type and other active uses. >> commissioner antonini. >> yes for ms. rodgers or ms. stephanie. just in regards to this legislation, it's broad enough that there could be other instances where it could apply on that corridor; is that correct? they have to fit the proscribed -- >> we don't think there are other places because it would only allow a medical service use to come into a place that had an existing business or professional service use. so, in looking at the district with the supervisor and the fan neighborhood organization group, we think this is a limited one that should not have broad application. >> i know that particular area
6:23am
of the city, i have a few mental health professionals who come in as patients and sometimes referred to as couch corridor because there are so many of those types of uses there. so, just making sure. it sounds like this is really balanced, but just afford an opportunity for this instance. and if there were others, they'd have to fit into the proscribed dictates of this legislation. >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i'll make a motion to approve with conditions. >> second. >> on that motion to approve as modified, councilmember atkinsv? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved r, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. and places you under item 10 for case no. case no. 2013.0029x for 222 2nd street. request for a determination of compliance. >> good afternoon, president
6:24am
fong and members of the commission. my name is kevin guy with planning staff. the request before you today is a determination of compliance under section 309 for project at 222 2nd street of the southwest corner of howard street. the proproject would demolish an existing parking lot and construct a 26 story office building containing 430,650 square feet of office uses, 2800 square feet of ground floor space, [speaker not understood], and ground floor public open space. the project was previously approved by this commission on august 21st, 2010 with a similar design and program of uses. at the time it was contemplated that a portion of the adjacent property to the west would be incorporated into the site. this area is occupied by a loading dock which would have been demolished and the area would have been utilized as a driveway ramp to access the parking for the project. since the previous approval this sponsor has been unable to acquire the portion of the adjacent property. so stating desire of the
6:25am
project to accommodate vehicular circulation, reconfigure the office floor area and reduce the amount of ground floor retail space. from approximately 5,000 square feet to 2800 square feet. the height and gross area of the project are unchanged from the previous approval. however, the changes to the massing of the building has triggered new exceptions under section 309 for bulk limits and separation of towers that were not [speaker not understood] in previous approval. the sponsors are requesting to modify the previous approval to grant these new exceptions. with respect to the bulk limits, both the previous and current design comply with the limits for the upper tower portion of the building. the floor plates and lower tower have been enlarged slightly. the commission previously granted a bulk exception to the lower tower. however, the floors and current design exceed the dimensions of the exception and would require new exception for the length dimension of the floor which has increased by 7 feet. staff believes that the current design still meets the criteria for granting of a bulk exception.
6:26am
with respect to the separation of towers, within s-bulk district the code requires setbacks from interior property lines and abutting streets. in order to preserve openness to the sky and avoid perception of overwhelming mass. [speaker not understood] along the howard, second, and tehema street frontages. [speaker not understood], the property line jogs to the east. in the previous design this was the area that was to be acquired from the adjacent property creating a space to comply with the [speaker not understood] requirements. the current design of the project does not comply with the current setback and a new exception is needed that was not previously granted. the conditions on the adjacent property will allow the setbacks to be met. [speaker not understood]. encroachment is setback to a loading dock [speaker not
6:27am
understood] 63 1 howard street. this property has sold all of its transferrable development rights, tdr, therefore the property cannot be enlarged under the tdr code. [speaker not understood] the encroachment of the project would not [speaker not understood] and would not diminish the appearance of separation between the buildings. i should note that in a previous approval the commission granted an exception to section 146 which specified the project be shaped to maintain an angle sunlight access to preserve sunlight on the 2nd street sidewalk. the commission found that the new shadow created by this exception would be limited in area and duration. compared with the previous design, the current project involves only minor reorientation of floor plates primarily within the base and lower tower portions of the building. therefore the shadow conditions on adjacent sidewalks would not dramatically differ from those expected by the previous design. so, in summary, staff supports the requested modification of the previous section 309
6:28am
approval to grant the new request for exceptions. the changes to the design are minor, and the building does not dramatically differ from the previously approved project. the project would redevelop an existing surface parking lot adding substantial office space, and retail amenities in a walkable location that is served by urban transit. thank you, and i'm available for questions. i should note that i did receive one letter in opposition that i will pass to the commission secretary for distribution. we received no other communications in opposition to the project. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. commissioners, andrew junius with rubin, junius and rose, [speaker not understood] representing the project sponsor. thank you for taking the time today. as usual kevin guy has stolen all my thunder. there's nothing else to say. the packet is complete. the detail given is completely accurate. to boil it down to 60 seconds
6:29am
worth, we're seeking the property line issue kevin raised in connection with the tower loading dock, the tower separation. the other one, the bulk and the change in the lower tower is really a manifestation of a new building code related to seismic tower [speaker not understood] that came up after the project was approved. so, very straightforward requests. the project before you we believe is essentially the same. programmatically, floor area, the height. we have support letters i'm going to pass forward that we didn't get into the packet in time. these are from the various trades that are very interested to get going on this project. finally, the project is fully funded, ready to get a building permit and come out of the ground as quickly as possible. our entire team is here to answer any questions, and thank you very much for your consideration today. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? [inaudible].

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)